I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from "in," to "and," in line 42, and to insert:

"such part of the area of that other Area Board as may be specified in the authorisation."

On the Committee stage of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) moved an Amendment which related to the provision of bulk supplies by one area board to another. He made the submission w.hich, in effect, was intended to make more specific the arrangements between area boards. I thought that there was substance in the right hon. Gentleman's contention and promised to provide a form of words which would be suitable. I have done so, and the effect of this Amendment will be that, where the Central Authority issue an authorisation to one area board to supply electricity to consumers in the area of another area board, that authorisation shall apply only to such part of the area as is specified, and not to the whole area. It is a very simple point, and this Amendment is intended to clarify the position.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has met the point we submitted to him, and we are very grateful.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "The policy of," and to insert:

"In exercising and performing their functions."

This and a number of the succeeding Amendments relate to the same topic. The object of this series of Amendments is to meet a criticism which was made by hon. Members opposite in Committee and which was directed to the vagueness, as they felt, of the words:

"The policy of the Electricity Boards shall …be directed to securing

Hon. Members criticised those words as leaving the matter very much in the air, and they pressed my right hon. Friend to change them, and to introduce instead some wording which would make clearer the duty that was being imposed on the electricity boards. We have sought to remedy that defect, and we have, instead, provided more specific duties in relation to each of the paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) We have also made specific reference to the extension to rural areas. We hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that the position is now clarified, and that the duties incumbent on the boards are precisely set out. That, we feel, meets the criticism which was made, with regard to which we felt there was some substance, namely, that the words quoted above do not specify with sufficient clarity what is placed on the boards and what is their duty.

Again, we are obliged to the Government. This is a concession of substance and this Amendment and the succeeding ones substantially meet the point that the Opposition made in Committee. Briefly it puts, as we believe it ought to put, a legal obligation on the boards to carry out the specified duty. The original Clause did not have this effect and merely amounted to a series of pious intentions. We think that the Amendments substantially improve the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out "such." and to insert "electrical."

This Amendment, the one immediately following it and the next but one could, perhaps, be considered together with your permission, Mr. Speaker. The three Amendments are necessary in order to make it clear that the powers of the boards to instal, repair, maintain or remove electrical plant or fittings, as the case may be, shall not be restricted to plant supplied by themselves only. It is generally agreed that such a restriction would be undesirable.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert: "and

(c) to carry on all such activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite, advantageous, or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the performance of their duties under the foregoing Section or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested. in them by or under this Act."

The circumstances in which I move this Amendment are a trifle peculiar. If you happen to have read this Bill, Sir, and recall it to your mind as originally drafted, you will no doubt have observed that paragraph (c), which we now seek to insert, was in the original Bill. After a lengthy Debate in Committee about the merits of this paragraph, which the Opposition moved to delete, a vote took place. It so happened that in the vote, a majority, composed entirely of hon. Members of the Labour Party, were found to have voted in favour of the deletion of the paragraph. At the same time, all the hon. Members of the Opposition voted the other way. It might be thought that the Opposition had acted in some perfidious manner in voting that way, but I would not suggest such a thing. I think that we were all sheep together, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) who was a lone wolf. He stood on his own and voted the right way.

The case for re-inserting the paragraph is that it is usual in the few Bills of this kind to give fairly wide powers to boards to carry on a number of different activities. These words are practically identical with those in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. Words of this kind are necessary because a body in the position of an electricity board, either the Central Authority or an area board, may have to conduct a number of activities. I mentioned in the Committee that a publicity campaign would be covered by a provision of this sort. Similar activities would be the sale of waste clinker, the provision of a canteen service for employees, the provision of hospitals and of houses in remote areas, and, no doubt, there are many other activities which would be covered by words of this kind. In Committee the Opposition objected to the paragraph being drawn in such wide terms, but when one is dealing with a large and important body of this kind it is difficult to restrict the provision. One would have to compose an enormous list of possible activities, which I think would be out of the question. It is hardly conceivable that we can now anticipate everything that the Authority might properly, and in accordance with the general spirit of the Bill, wish to do in the future. I think I need mention only one other point. The paragraph refers to:

"making the best use of any assets vested in them by or under this Act."

That is a reference to the non-electricity assests which, to some extent, even with the Amendments which have been made in Committee and with other Amendments which might be made hereafter, will still exist. For example, there may be some gas undertakings which will vest in the boards, and it will be necessary for the boards to have power to dispose of them. This paragraph provides that power.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred with becoming modesty to the contretemps in the Standing Committee. and I can assure him that no hon. Member on this side of the House is in any position to attempt to score off him and his hon. Friends on that point. But I do think the Parliamentary Secretary carried his modesty a little far when he referred to this paragraph as providing the boards with "fairly wide powers." "Fairly wide powers" is a very modest description of a provision which confers on the Authority a substantial power to carry on any transaction of any sort that it so desires. It would have been more honest if this paragraph had been drafted:

"The Boards may do anything they like."

Those words would have substantially the same effect as the proposed paragraph, and at the same time they would have been perfectly open and above board.

It is difficult to visualise any activity in which the boards would not be empowered to indulge under this paragraph. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary did not wish to mislead the House when he said its provisions were fairly similar to the corresponding provision in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I am afraid that is not so. The relevant provision of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act is Section I (2) and, in particular, paragraphs (d) and (e) The material and comparable provision is contained in paragraph (e,) which says:

"any activities which can advantageously be carried on by the Board with a view to making the best use of any of the assets vested in them by this Act."

If the hon. Gentleman will read the first part of the passage from which he has quoted, he will see that the words are practically identical.

The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the "first part." There are four preceding paragraphs. I will read them all if he so wishes. Which has he in mind?

The part before paragraph (a.)

The words are:

"The functions of the National Coal Board …shall include the carrying on of all such activities as it may appeal to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for Os in connection with the discharge of their duties under the preceding Subsection and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this Section—"

It is obvious that those words are much narrower than the provisions of this Bill. In this Bill anything that appears to the Authority to be advantageous is permissible. That means that there is no limit at all. No one desires to inhibit the Electricity Authority from performing any necessary functions in connection with the generation and distribution of electricity, but what calls for explanation is the desire to arm the Central Authority with powers to carry on almost any other industrial process. Is it the intention of the Government that it should, or are the Government merely following their now habitual process of taking every possible power in every possible Bill in case somebody later on may want to use it? I think we are entitled to know what are the intentions of the Government, as under this Bill the Government will have power to issue directions to the Authority.

I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary did not call in aid on this occasion, as he will recollect he called in aid on the Committee stage, a wholly fallacious comparison between statutory powers and the memorandum of association of a company, because I imagine the abandonment of that argument means that the Parliamentary Secretary has now been convinced of its fallacious nature. I suggest that the proper comparison with the powers given to this statutory monopoly is with' the powers given under Private Bill procedure in this House to public utility companies. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that in all such cases the applicant for the powers has to satisfy the Select Committee of the real need for every power before it is given. This Electricity Authority is in many cases actually replacing the public utility companies operating under these private Acts of Parliament and, therefore, the analogy is exact. The Electricity Authority should be in substantially the same position as those public utility companies—that is to say, fully entitled to any powers for which it can make out a reasonable case, but not entitled to take wide and sweeping powers to do almost anything it wishes.

In his habitually disarming way the Parliamentary Secretary may have led the House to think that the discussion on this Amendment arises solely owing to the amusing little contretemps in the Standing Committee, but it goes further. It goes to the root of the purpose of these public monopoly corporations. Are they, or are they not, to be confined to the particular function which was the intention of this House in setting them up—that is to say, dealing with electricity—or are they to have carte blanche to wander over the whole sphere of industry, competing at will with other State monopolies, or even with that diminishing but still vigorous class, the private enterprise firm? We are entitled to know, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not told us. He has simply asked for these powers, said that the necessity for the request arose merely because of an accident, and sat down. I hope that before we give to this Authority and to the Minister who controls it these amazingly extensive powers, we shall be told why they are required and for what purpose it is intended they shall be used.

I feel bound to say a word on this matter because I had the privilege on another occasion of moving the deletion of these words, and of having the Government reject my Amendment and the Committee accept it, although it was also the one occasion when I voted against myself. I rather regret the Government have turned from the path they then took in voting against themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that he is proposing an omnibus proviso. When that was suggested earlier today he dissented and I notice that he shook 'his head with considerable vigour. But the Parliamentary Secretary, even if he has not reached that stage of wisdom which I remember he could bring to the Bill in the mornings, in regard to matters in general, will understand, I hope, that the memorandum of a limited company really has very little effect in practice, because those companies are already very limited in scope in other ways and for other reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out that the electricity boards are more comparable to public utility companies than to anything else, and that this Amendment gives the Board wider powers than they have ever had. It is completely contrary to Parliamentary practice that powers should be given so wide as these and I would close, because I do not want to talk at length at this stage, by making one quotation which, I think, does set out the difference between an omnibus clause in a memorandum and other such powers:

"In general, the distinction between the objects clause in a memorandum and powers granted by Parliament is, that the first defines the purposes for which the company may apply its members' funds, and the second defines the powers which the company may exercise as against the rest of the world, being powers which it could not normally exercise without the authority of Parliament."

I think that is a fair definition, and I am bound to say that the Amendment goes very far beyond the usual practice.

I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said. A similar provision was inserted in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and although it may not have gone quite so wide as this, it certainly was, in my opinion, too wide. Now we have this paragraph in this Bill which goes even wider. I can quite understand why it is the Government's point of view to insert powers of this kind in their nationalisation Bills. When they nationalise an industry or a service—the coal mines, or electricity, or transport— it is a large and formidable undertaking. To get the nationalisation Bill through Parliament is a difficult job and takes a long time, and they can get only one or, at the most, two Bills of that size and complexity through Parliament in a single Session. Therefore, it is extremely convenient to extend the field of nationalisation almost without limit by the backdoor and by a process of pure administration, such as can be done by inserting wide and unlimited powers of this kind in a nationalisation Bill. It is, in fact, what the Government are doing. They ought to be perfectly frank about it and admit it, and it ought to be placed on record, for that is really what their object appears to be—to extend the field of nationalisation to an almost unlimited extent by putting in a small and apparently harmless provision of this kind in a nationalisation Bill

The disappearance of this paragraph in Committee was somewhat surprising, but it was welcome. As it stands, I think, it neutralises a great deal of the work that was done in trying to define the duties and functions of the Board. A very great deal of detailed work will be rendered valueless as a result of this Amendment. Although I do not like statutory rules and -orders I do suggest that, if more elasticity is wanted, it might be better in this' case instead of having these words, to allow statutory rules and orders which might be considered in this House. Once these words are put into the Bill great powers will be given that cannot be questioned in any way.

The Parliamentary Secretary, when defending the restoration of this paragraph, justified it on two grounds. He said that it was necessary in order to enable the Authority to carry on such things as canteens or to provide residences for workers in out of the way places. In order to do that, this paragraph is entirely unnecessary; because in Clause 47 specific provision is made for the Authority to consult with the associa- tions of employees, and so forth, with a view to the provision of welfare activities; and, clearly, the provision of a canteen comes within welfare. Therefore, the Authority, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, would have ample powers to do that. He went on to say that the other object of this Amendment is to enable the Boards, when they take over the assets of certain holdings which have nothing to do with electricity, to sell them to the best advantage. We would not query that at all; but it is quite unnecessary, in order to enable the Central Authority to sell assets that are not connected with the generation or distribution of electricity, to give them these extremely wide powers; it is not necessary to give them these powers to carry out that very narrow purpose. Therefore, the Government Front Bench have made out no case for this Amendment.

Ithas been the practice of Parliament throughout the history of Bills dealing with electricity, conferring powers either on local authorities or on private companies, to specify in great detail the powers and duties that are to be exercised by the local authorities as undertakers or by companies. These powers, which resemble ordinary omnibus powers in an ordinary public company's memorandum, are entirely new in the history of this House and in the history of the generation and distribution of electricity in this country, and are quite clearly unnecessary for the efficient functioning of the Centra] Authority. In these circumstances I regret very much the Government have seen fit to put down this Amendment, and to try to reverse the decision made upstairs. Certainly, on the arguments that have been put forward, I think any dispassionate reader of the Debate, or anyone who has listened to the Debate so far, will agree that no case for the Amendment has been made out.

I do not think that this Amendment ought to be allowed to go by with what the right hon. Gentleman has just now said uncorrected. What it provides is quite clear. Clause 47 says that the Central Authority may seek consultation with any organisation in order to promote and encourage welfare matters, not to set up canteens. That is an entirely different matter.

Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I might read it again. Clause 47 reads:

"the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare …"

Quite clearly, the establishment of canteens is a measure affecting the welfare

I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, after "shall," to insert:

"subject to the provisions of the Act of 1943."

This Amendment makes it clear that the specific provisions of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, are not superseded by the new provisions in this Bill.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:

"and such appointments shall be made from the Area Boards in rotation."

This Amendment relates to the appointment and period of office of the chairmen of the area boards on the Central Authority. It is our intention that the closest possible contact shall be maintained. be- tween the Central Authority and the area boards, which, I think, will be;to their mutual advantage. We have to consider how that contact is to be initiated and afterwards maintained. It is my view, after a careful consideration of this problem, that the best means of maintaining close contact is to appoint, in rotation, four of the area board chairmen to the Central Authority. We considered whether it would be desirable, having made the appointments, to retain the services of certain of the chairmen, with high qualifications, on the Central Authority for a period of years, but, as the intention is to maintain contact between the boards, rather than to utilise the services of the chairmen of the area boards on the Central Authority, I came to the conclusion that this was the best means of dealing with the problem.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the suggestion was first made by us in Committee. It is a definite improvement to the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 7,line 44, after "aforesaid," to insert:

"or to constitute a new area for which a new Area Board is required to be established under the next following Subsection."

This Amendment, I think, meets the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. We had some discussions on what might happen in the event of a new area board being created. As the wording of the original provision appeared to be defective, I have framed this form of wording, which I hope will be satisfactory.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "may, where necessary," and to insert:

"shall, so far as it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variation of areas or the establishment of a new Area Board."

This Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments are consequential on the Amendment which has just been made.

I think that this is a little more than a consequential Amendment because it leaves to the sole discretion of the Minister, without consultation with the Central Authority or the area boards, to decide on what is or what is not necessary to be done in consequence of a change in or variation of areas.

The right hon. Gentleman is partly right. We are not certain what will be required in this matter, and it appears to us, therefore, that it must be left to the Minister to determine, in the light of the circumstances, what course of action shall be taken. It will be noted that we have inserted the word "shall" in the place of the word "may," thus making the provision mandatory. The Opposition had an Amendment on the Order Paper which was not called during the Committee stage, to make it mandatory instead of permissive. I have, therefore, responded to their wish, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the explanation.

I am much obliged.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:

(2) In carrying oat such measures of reorganisation or such works of development as involve substantia] outlay on capital account, and in giving directions to any Area Board with respect to such measures or works, the Central Authority shall act in accordance with a general programme settled from time to time in consultation with the Minister."

This Amendment and the next Amendment standing on the Order Paper relate to some criticism which was made by the Opposition during the Committee stage about the nature of the words used in the Bill. It was thought that they were a bit "woolly," if I may use the expression of hon. Members opposite, and I make no protest about that. It seemed at the time that they were slightly "ambiguous," which is a more refined expression than "woolly." I think, therefore, that it may be desirable to improve the language of the Clause.

We are grateful once again to the Minister for meeting our views. As the Debate goes on, the House will discover that this is not the only occasion when the drafting of the Bill has been "woolly," and, indeed, some of the ideas behind the right hon. Gentleman, as shown by the fact that he has had to recommit so many Clauses. However, we are grateful for any small improvements.

All I have to say about that is that it denotes how responsive we are to hon. Members opposite when they make their submissions.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, after "half," to insert: "not more than two-thirds."

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment were discussed with the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, in page 10, line 25, to leave out from beginning, to "and," in line 27, and to insert:

"members of local authorities whose districts are wholly or partly within the area, nominated (by such bodies as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities) to represent the general interests of domestic consumers of electricity."

Clause 7 (2) states that not less than half of the panel of persons nominated from members of local authorities in the area of the board in question and nominated by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities shall go to the formation of such a council; and the remainder, if any—and I repeat "if any," because not less than half might mean all from local authorities—are to be appointed after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit to represent consumers of electricity, and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area.

What we seek to do is, first, to limit the number drawn from local authorities to two-thirds. In the Clause as it stands the specific representation of the consumers is the duty of the other half— not the half drawn from the local authorities—and they are also to represent persons and organisations interested in development of electricity in the area. We all admit that local authorities may, and do, represent domestic consumers, but the great bulk of electricity is consumed by industry, and there is a risk of industry not being adequately represented. Secondly, we seek expressly to require in writing that the local authority members—those nominated by local authorities—shall represent the general interest of domestic consumers. Third, we wish to clear up the position of the local authority whose territory is partly in one area and partly in another area. That is not clear as the Clause stands. Fourth, by changing the word "association" to "bodies," we believe we are giving greater flexibility, as some bodies which might be useful might be excluded if we use the word "associations." We believe that this will clarify the Subsection.

As I have said on previous occasions, we appreciate the objects for which these consultative councils are to be set up. We believe the objects to be sound, but we distrust the ability of the machinery envisaged in the Clause to obtain those objects. I believe that no single piece of machinery can possibly fulfil the two functions which are required—one to protect the consumers, and, the other, to provide industry with the opportunity of general criticism and of giving helpful suggestions. I believe that two separate machines are needed. I am trying to make the best of the Clause, and I hope that my suggestions will be accepted in that spirit. I know that local authorities may wish to resist this. They would like to have an opportunity of being the sole representatives. I do not blame them. They have had considerable powers in the past, and every one likes to retain their powers. I am a member of a local authority, and I have sympathy with them, but what we ask for is really all that they have had in the past—that there should be maximum representation of two-thirds, which is, roughly speaking, equivalent to the power which they have always had.

I beg to second the Amendment

It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider the basis upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has presented his Amendment. It is proposed in the Bill, with regard to the creation of consultative councils in each area, that they should consist of not fewer-than 20 or more than 30 persons to be appointed by the Minister, and not less than half to be appointed from a panel of persons nominated from amongst members of local authorities in the area by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities; and the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit, to represent consumers of electricity and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area. Those are the terms of the Clause.

It is of the utmost importance that the provision for appointing members to the consultative councils should be flexible. The reason is that circumstances vary from area to area. There is no dispute between us as to the desirability of having the local authorities represented on the consultative councils. In certain areas, there are local authorities who have been directly associated with electricity undertakings which they own; whereas, in other areas, there are local authorities who, while naturally interested in the matter of electricity supply, were not the owners of electricity undertakings. It appears to me that it might be necessary—indeed, I think that it will be necessary—that we should vary the arrangement for the appointment and the representation of local authorities from area to area, and not provide too rigid a form. It is true that the local authorities associations, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated, have expressed a desire for an increase in the number of local authority representatives on the consultative councils; on the other hand, the Federation of British Industry, which claims to represent industry, have expressed the view that the proposed number of local authority representatives is too high and industry should have a larger number of representatives. It is for the Minister to strike a reasonable balance, taking all the circumstances into account, to see that the local authorities who, on the whole, can claim to represent the domestic consumers are adequately represented, and, at the same time, to ensure that industry is also adequately represented. That is the intention.

If I accepted the Amendment to substitute the words, "nor more than two-thirds," for the word, "half," local authorities in every area might assume that they were entitled, in spite of the special circumstances of the area, to two-thirds representation. I do not want to give them that impression, and I feel it is better that the matter should be left in my hands after consultation with the representative organisations. In view of that explanation, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will feel that I have taken the most appropriate line in the circumstances.

I think that the difficulty under which we are labouring, and under which the Committee upstairs laboured, lies in the fact that the Govern- ment do not seem to have any clear idea of what interests, if any, the local authority representatives should represent. It may be argued, and it would perhaps be somewhat natural to argue, that local authority representatives are the natural custodians of the interests of the consumers, the electors, who, for the most part, use electricify. But that interpretation does not seem to square with the words of the Clause, which states:

"Each of the said Councils shall consist of …

(a) not less than halt shall be appointed from a panel of persons nominated from amongst members of local authorities in the area by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities; and,

(b) the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation …to represent consumers of electricity …"

The implication of that is that if the rest are to represent the interests of the consumers the local authority representatives are to represent something else, not the consumers. We have never been told what the local authority representatives are to represent. They certainly do not represent agricultural interests, or the industrial consumers of electricity, although there may be some exceptional cases where a local authority has a large factory which consumes electricity, or owns trams which need electricity to run them. But these represent a minority, and it seems hardly logical that in order to represent such local authorities half the members of the consultative council in every area should be appointed from members of local authorities. I cannot conceive that that is the intention, even allowing for the woolliness of the present Minister.

One of the main defects of the Bill is that the statutory safeguards which the consumer has enjoyed since electricity first started to be developed are being abolished. The only alternative safeguards are these consultative councils. Therefore, we attach the greatest importance to trying to see that these councils are bodies which will have a substantial voice, and can make their influence felt. We put forward suggestions in Committee for improving the effectiveness of these councils. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the Government, and form the subject of subsequent Amendments. We believe that it is vital that there should be a clear understanding of what the consultative councils exist for, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he could define, at this late stage, what his conception is of the functions of local authority representatives? Are they to represent domestic consumers, or to be on the council merely because they once had electricity undertakings which are now being taken away? If we could get our ideas clear on that it would help Members on all sides of the House to be able to assess, better than they can do at the moment, the provisions of this Subsection.

If the right hon. Gentleman's ideas are not clear I cannot understand why he described me as being woolly. I should imagine that it was his mind which required clarification. He himself tried to clear up the matter in Standing Committee, and I am a little surprised at the way in which he has just spoken. In dealing with this point in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman "said:

"I think everyone will agree that the local authorities can be taken to represent the ordinary domestic consumer. They certainly will not represent the industrial consumer, the commercial consumer or the agricultural consumer.''

That is not a very good answer to his question, because they represent the whole of them in one form or another. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"Therefore, we think that the domestic consumer ought to be well satisfied with having 50 per cent. of the representation. This is slightly more than the domestic consumer is entitled to on the basis of electricity consumed, and for these reasons we suggest that the words 'not less than' should be deleted, and the word 'one' inserted, so that one-half of the council, and not more than one-half, should be representatives of the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1947; c. 302.]

If that is so, I cannot understand why this Amendment has been proposed today. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whom the local authorities represented, and why they were to be represented on these consultative councils. The Bill is explicit about the functions of the councils. I will not weary the House by reading the relevant Clause, but it is clear what the consultative councils are expected to do. The local authority has the right to be represented on the consultative council, because apart from its general interest in the provision of electricity supply it has a special interest. An area board or the Central Authority, may require from time to time to open up streets, interfere with highways, or disturb amenities to lay cables and the like. Clearly, a local authority is much concerned with such questions, and would wish to express an opinion upon them, but generally speaking I would say that the primary interest of the local authority on the consultative councils is its concern with the interests of electricity consumers and, in particular, of potential electricity consumers with regard to the possibility of expanding electricity in its area. It seems to me that in all the circumstances we are taking the right measures to secure adequate representation from bodies which are entitled to be represented.

If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by saying that the reason we put this Amendment down again was that a Division was taken in the Committee upstairs on a limiting Amendment which was defeated. We then suggested not more than half, but, in order to go further towards meeting the right hon. Gentleman we are now suggesting that it should not be more than two-thirds. As the Bill stands the Minister is able to appoint a 100 per cent. local authority representation if he so desires. The Bill says, "not less than half," but it leaves him free to appoint 100 per cent. if he wishes. It may be that we have not made our point clear, but while admitting the definition he has just given of the function of the local authority representation, which is clearer than any we have ever had before, we still think they ought to be content with a half and certainly not more than two-thirds in order to enable adequate room to be found for the people whom we consider should be represented as consumers —namely, those whom the right hon. Gentleman intends to include in an Amendment which will be discussed later.

It is quite clear that provision is made for persons other than those represented on local authorities because paragraph (6) says that the remainder shall be appointed. It may well be that this requires strengthening, and although I am not quite certain, I think it might be more explicit. In those circumstances I think it might perhaps be possible to correct the matter in another place.

In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page Io, line 30, after "represent," to insert:

"agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and the general interests of."

This Government Amendment is in response to a suggestion made in our Debates in Committee that all desirable interests should be represented. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which contests one of the words contained in this Amendment—the word"labour"—but perhaps I can deal with that at a later stage. It is my submission that these words adequately secure the representation of all persons and bodies who are entitled to be represented.

I should like to say how pleased I am that the Minister has responded to what was said upstairs. This Amendment covers a wide variety of interests and it was certainly our contention in Committee that all possible interests should be taken into account with regard to representation on the consultative committees. As a Scottish Member perhaps the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow me to say how glad I am that this Amendment has been so widely drawn, because we Scottish Members had and, indeed still have, considerable apprehensions in regard to the' way in which this Bill will operate in the northern Kingdom. It may be out of Order for me to say this, but—

If the hon. Member knows that it is out of Order he had better not say it.

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think I am in Order in saying that we will have some doubt as to how this Measure will operate in Scotland. As a Scottish Member representing an agricultural constituency I am glad to see that the Minister has put agriculture first on his list because there is no doubt that it ranks largest, both from the point of view of area under cultivation and the numbers of people employed. We are very anxious to see that it should be the first concern, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn this Amendment so widely.

Like the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), I should like to say how glad I am to see the Minister inserting the word "agriculture" here for the second time in the Bill. In spite of the fact that in his Second Reading speech he said how important it was to increase rural area electrification, I think I am right in saying that in the Bill as originally drafted the word "agriculture" did not occur at all. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now bear in mind the engagement that was made between the companies and the National Farmers' Union in September, 1946, whereby a really big scheme of rural electrification was to take place in the next five years enabling farms in the country to be supplied with electricity. This scheme was accepted, without responsibility on the Treasury, by the farmers, who were to bear one-third of the cost, and by the companies who were to bear the other two-thirds. Now the companies are going out of existence and I hope that the Minister will recognise that the new Authority should take over that obligation which was not originally intended to be a Treasury obligation although, in the present circumstances, it undoubtedly becomes one.

I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not proposed to call the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment—to leave out "labour," and to insert "persons employed by the Area Board."—standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. Therefore I hope to keep in Order by putting my points at this stage. I want to argue that the Minister should interpret the word "labour" in his Amendment in such a way as to give representation on the consultative committees through the trade unions to those actually employed in the industry. When this matter was raised in Standing Committee I believe that the word "syndicalism" was breathed, but this would hardly be syndicalism because the consultative committees are advisory bodies only, and syndicalism, if it means anything, must surely mean some degree of control.

5.0 p.m.

It may be argued that to include employees in this narrower interpretation rather than in the broad definition of labour is improper, because the consultative committees are purely consumer organisations; but I do not think that that is the view of my right hon. Friend because he resisted an Amendment of the Opposition upstairs to change the name of the consultative committees to consumer councils. I want to quote, if I may, some of my right hon. Friend's words. There are two very good quotations, but in view of the need for pressing ahead I will only read the shorter one. This was on the 6th day of the Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman said:

"Hon. Members will see, therefore, that this is something far beyond a consumers council. It is an entirely new conception, and one which is, I think, very desirable in the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th March, 1947; c. 278.]

I hope, therefore, it will not be argued by my right hon. Friend that this is a purely consumers' body and that the employees in the industry should not be represented on it. In the words of the Bill, these consultative councils are to consist of all those interested in the development of electricity in the area, and I am sure that those who work in the industry, technical staff, clerical staff and manual operatives, would certainly come under that definition. I have always found the workers in the electricity industry to be extremely proud of their connection with it. They understand the obligations of the industry to the public, and because of their knowledge of consumer requirements it would be useful if they were represented on the consultative councils. They would make a valuable contribution to the work of the councils because of their knowledge of consumer requirements.

I, therefore, hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he intends to give the word "labour" in his own Amendment the meaning "electricity supply employees" and not restrict it, let us say, to the secretary of the local gas workers' branch. Not that one has any objection as such to gas workers, but the gas worker or the carpenter, the doctor or the housewife, is, in relation to electricity, a consumer, whereas the electricity worker is obviously in a very special relation to it, and that is the point I want to make. I know what my right hon. Friend will say, at least I think I do. He will say that under Clause 47, which deals with the negotiating machinery and all the rest of it, the workers have a right to be consulted on all matters affecting the industry, including the practical efficiency of the industry. I am very glad of that, but. I am definitely arguing, and I know I have the support of a number of my hon. Friends, for something additional and extra to that. I want to bring the rank and file employees into a local, common unity of purpose which is really enthusiastic for the development of electricity. I want to bring them in on a level which will really mean something to them.

There is no question, as I see it, of bringing wages, salaries and conditions into the discussions in the consultative councils, because those matters are quite properly dealt with by the machinery provided under Clause 47. I support this Bill in the interests of electrical efficiency, but I am not so foolish, I hope, as to suppose that the replacement of a director of a company by a far-away expert or even by a retired trade union official, does not at times appear a somewhat cold transaction to the men in the industry itself. If nationalisation in this industry or any other industry is to have a personal meaning to the men and women employed in it, if we are to achieve success in our efforts in the public ownership of electricity supply, we have to make such arrangements that the workers in the industry will intimately share in its responsibilities.

I want to support the point of view just submitted by the hon. Member and plead with the Minister on this issue, as the hon. Member's Amendment will not be called. In Committee an effort was made to have the workers engaged in the industry closely associated with the consultative councils. If I read this Clause aright, the tendency is all in the direction of watching the rights of both domestic and industrial consumers, and no one will quarrel with the idea that it is necessary to include a Clause of this kind. But surely the tendency today, if nationalisation has a meaning at all, is to bring the workers into the closest consultation with the consumers of the goods which the industry produces. Even in industries under private enterprise it is the tendency to bring the workers as closely as possible into contact with those who are running the industry. This is purely consultative, and I submit that with the best will in the world, and with all their knowledge of local government, even members of local authorities who sit on a consultative council see only one angle of the problem. It is the same with representatives of the industries which may be associated with it. I feel that all interests should be associated in any general discussion—not on conditions or hours of labour, but on how best to equip the industry to meet the demands of the consumers.

I submit this further point because I believe it is of the utmost importance. While I was a member of the Committee upstairs I was also associated with the Scottish Committee dealing with the Health Services for Scotland. I was absent on occasions from either the one or the other because they both happened to meet at the same time, but if I am permitted to draw an analogy, may I call attention to the Government's attitude in regard to the Scottish Health Services? An advisory committee was appointed— surely I am entitled to draw such an analogy?

I have not stopped the hon. Member. He has hesitated without being stopped.

Your movement, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, made me think that you were getting ready to make a comment on my observations, but I will go on until I am stopped. There may be some difference between an advisory committee and a consultative council, but I do not know it. I admit ignorance at once; I cannot define too clearly the difference between them. My reading of their responsibilities is that in either case they are merely to give suggestions to the responsible authority, either the Minister or the board. I know that the Government which was responsible for this Measure was responsible for the Scottish Health Services Measure, and the advisory committee in the latter case is completely dominated by people directly associated with the profession—I dare not say with the industry, because I am dealing with the medical profession. On an advisory committee of 35 members 18 mast be medical practitioners. If that is so, there is nothing unreasonable in pleading that the Minister should interpret the word "labour" to include those engaged directly in the industry in the membership of these councils.

I admit there may be other interests involved, but I feel that people direct from the industry should be permitted to sit on the councils, even more than trade union officials representing those workers. I hope our pleading will not be in vain, because of the importance of getting the workers to believe that the nationalisation of the industry is much more than a mere change of ownership and that they are being brought into it as members of the community to give even better than they have given in the past.

I support the point of view that has been put forward as to representation upon the consultative councils. I find it difficult to believe that that is not the intention of the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. If one notes that representatives of agriculture, commerce, and industry are to be included in the consultative councils it should be obvious that they must include workers' representatives. Agricultural workers represent the industry quite as well as farmers, and they are represented upon the county committees. It is wholly wrong for the expression "representatives of agriculture" to exclude the farm workers. Similarly, the broad term "representatives of industry" must include not only employers and administrators, but employees, mechanics and others. I hope that the Minister will confirm that view.

Unfortunately for the argument advanced by the last three speakers, the hon. Member who read out extracts from the speeches of the Minister as they suited his purpose refrained from repeating what the Parliamentary Secretary had said on the same point. Perhaps the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) might be interested to note what those views are. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"I suggest to my hon. Friends that in view of the fact that we are going to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage covering organised labour it is really unreasonable to insist that we should make specific provision for the representation of the employees in the industry."

He went on to say:

"Some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends conveyed to me the idea that these bodies were going to discuss all sorts of things connected with the efficiency of the industry. Supposing they were; I would draw attention to Clause 47 (1, b) where provision is made for consultations between the boards and those employed by the boards on matters affecting safety, health and welfare, and all other matters of mutual interest to the boards, including efficiency in the operation of the board's services."

Those are already provided for in Clause 47 (I). The Parliamentary Secretary proceeded:

"I would emphasise as strongly as I can that I entirely agree with the remarks which have been made by some hon. Members regarding the need for bringing the employees in on that side. What I disagree with is the suggestion that they should be brought in, as such, to these consultative councils."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 18th March, 1947; c. 320..]

I included that point in my remarks.

It is clear that in the mind of the Government the council is not concerned with the efficient running of the industry in the national sense, but only with the impact of the industry upon the consumer. It is not concerned with what a particular generating station does. We welcome the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. It corresponds to and complies with a request that we put forward from our side of the Standing Committee. The only point where it is deficient is that indicated in an Amendment in our name to the proposed Amendment, after "agriculture" to insert "housewives." Fortunately for the Government, it is not likely to be called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'fortunately'?"] Because it would presumably, in view of the Government's attitude towards the housewives, embarrass the Government if they found they had to comply with the request.

I am the more surprised at the Minister omitting any proposal to include the housewives, because of the remark which he made just now towards the end of his speech in moving the Amendment. He said that he was anxious to cover all practical consumers when he was looking for these representatives. By far the majority of practical consumers of electricity in this country are the housewives. 'They probably know more about electricity than other classes, and they can be trusted in increasing number to do so when the right hon. Gentle- man, in his other capacity as the Minister of Fuel and Power, is able to provide a little more coal.

In a recent speech even the Minister himself paid a tribute to the housewives. The right hon. Gentleman makes so many speeches, some optimistic and some pessimistic, that he may not be able to keep track of them. The speech to which I now refer was made on 14th June. He said:

"Housewives have contributed much valuable advice from the stores of their experience and common sense, and they are working hard to assist."

He evidently thinks more of housewives than does his right hon. and learned colleague, the Attorney-General. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the housewives have contributed much valuable advice from the stores of their experience, it seems odd that when he is laying down the people who are to be represented upon the consultative councils as practical consumers, he does not propose to avail himself of the housewives' advice and common sense. Despite the fact that the Amendment may not be called, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in the light of the speech which I have quoted, will say that the omission is an oversight which he "will rectify by an Amendment in another place.

Perhaps I had better dispose of the right hon. Gentleman, to begin with. I remember him, in the days of unemployment and squalor for which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were primarily responsible. I shall not go into that matter, because I imagine it would be out of Order, or we might find ourselves in disorder. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman must be asked to distinguish between ordinary, common-sense housewives of the country who deserve our support, and certain organisations which claim to represent housewives or alleged housewives but which are, as we know—I think I have the appropriate word—the maidservants of the Tory Party. If I accepted such an Amendment as is on the Paper, and if I were to make arrangements for the insertion of the word "housewives," I should be challenged immediately by the spinsters and by the single persons, who are consumers of electricity also and have as much right to be represented on the council, as consumers of electricity, as have the housewives.

Local authorities are to be represented on the consultative committees as I have indicated already, and that is provided for in the Bill. There are many housewives associated with the local authorities, being members of those local authorities, and very valuable members indeed. I should not be at all surprised if, in appointing representatives on local authorities after consultation with the bodies concerned, we find quite a large number of housewives—

Not spinsters.

—of the intelligent and non-Tory type on the consultative councils. There we must leave this matter of the housewives. Let us come to the major point under review. I fully understand the conception held by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer), who has great knowledge of this industry and of the employees in the industry. I appreciate the conception which is, in effect, put forward in order to create something akin to democratic control in the industry. He argues that the employees in an industry should be associated with the general activities of that industry. In fact, we have so provided in Clause 47 to which my hon. Friend referred. May I direct the attention of the House to what is in Subsection (I, b:)

"the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Electricity Boards"—

that is very desirable—

"and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Boards and such persons"—

that is the employees—

"including efficiency in the operation of the services of the Boards."

Those are very comprehensive words and go much further than anything attempted in the sphere of private enterprise. Already we find in connection with the nationalised mining industry that that conception is beginning to bear fruit. There is being promoted a better atmosphere and there are more consultations. There will have to be more consultations, but that will come in due course. The conception is here deployed and I hope it will come to fruition in due course. What my hon. Friends are seeking to achieve is that the workers should not be regarded merely as ciphers, whether they are in the employment of a private individual, a public utility company or a public corporation. They believe that a worker should have the status which enables him to be brought into every possible sphere relating to the activities of the industry concerned, while his knowledge should be placed at the disposal of the Board responsible for the supervision of the industry.

When we come to the consultative council and ask the question, "How are these consultative councils to be different from the consumers' councils?" I can give the answer at once. Often in the past we have been told that the consumers' councils were merely eyewash. The consumers' councils have been a facade—a camouflage for the real purpose behind their creation. They met frequently, but they had no authority and their advice was disregarded. I have a much broader conception of consumers' rights than was reflected in the old consumers' council, and even in the case of the nationalised mining industry, where the consumers' councils are provided for and which are now in the process of being appointed, we expect that those bodies will express themselves, if necessarily forcibly, on matters which relate to the consumers' interest and will not be fobbed off by pious declarations by those responsible for the running of the industry or the service there.

If hon. Members look at Clause 7 (4, a) they will see how comprehensive are to be the activities of the consultative councils. They are to concern themselves with

"any matter affecting the distribution of electricity in the area, including the variation of tariffs and the provision of new or improved services and facilities within the area"

That goes very far, and therefore, there is great substance in the claim that already we have made these consultative councils really live virile bodies, actively pursuing the interests of the consumer in the area.

The question at issue is whether the employees of the area board in a particular area should be represented on these consultative councils, and I ask myself the question, "Why should they be represented on these area boards if provision is made in Clause 47 for consultation and discussion in the adequate presentation of the interests of the employee in regard to matters pertaining to health and welfare?" It seems, therefore, that it is redundant that they should be represented specifically on these consultative councils. I have provided in the proposal now before the House that labour along with other interests in commerce and agriculture should be represented on the consultative councils. I have been asked to define labour. Is there width or breadth in that definition? Perhaps I can give an empirical reply. When I appoint the consultative councils, what process will I envisage? I will first go to the local authorities or the organisation of local authorities if one exists in the area, and ask for their views about the persons who should be represented on the local authorities. Then I should approach representatives of certain indus-tries in the area, who may be concerned with domestic expansion or even with industrial expansion. Next I should approach the trade unions in the area, and perhaps the co-operative organisations who represent consumers, and any other consumers' organisation which is truly representative and ask them to make recommendations to me, reserving to myself the right of appointment.

Did my right hon. Friend deliberately make the differentiation when he said that he would approach the trades unions and, "perhaps the co-operative organisations" ?

I was not aware that I said "perhaps the co-operative organisations," and I will correct myself at once. Inasmuch as the co-operative societies can reasonably claim with substantial reasons that they represent a large body of consumers, they ought to be represented. I do not exclude any other representation by consumers' organisations if there are any, in the area. I will approach the trade unions. When I approach the trade unions in the area—or perhaps a trades council or some other trade union body—and ask them to make appointments on the consultative councils of representatives of labour, as indicated in my proposition, if they care to send a trade union secretary, that is not my concern if the person is worth while and has the qualifications. If they select two or three—I shall not specify the actual number—persons who are actually engaged in electricity activities under the direction or supervision of an area board, I will enter no caveat. I will leave it to them to make the recommendation, but I will not—I say this quite categorically to my hon. Friends—make an appointment on the consultative councils specifically and definitely from employees of an area board, because I think that would be improper. I am sorry that I must say so to my hon. Friends.

On the other hand, I see their intentions and they are reasonable and good intentions, and, so far as I can comply with them, I shall certainly do so. Hon. Members know me well enough to know how anxious I am to secure the adherence and active assistance of employees in all industries, particularly in relation to nationalised undertakings. I shall do what I can to implement what I have said in the past in these matters. In those circumstances I beg my hon Friends not to press the matter, and I "presume that hon. Members opposite will not press me on the question of housewives. I think that in all the circumstances I have made the provision as comprehensive as it is possible to be, and with that I leave it to the House.

I would like to add a few words of support to the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in favour of housewives. If we look at the classes included in the Amendment we see that each one of them —agriculture, commerce, industry and labour—are sections which use electricity, except for labour, for the purpose of producing something. They are not purely consumers who are consuming it for themselves. Labour is in another category and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be included, but he told us just now that he was going to approach the trade unions, and one of his objections to the housewives was that a certain proportion of them—and perhaps the majority of them— were the handmaidens of the Conservative Patty. What about the trade unions? We know that they are perhaps not the handmaidens of the Labour Party, but they are certainly the masters of the Government. Why is it an objection to the housewives that they might be Conservative and not an objection to the trade unions that they might be Labour? It cannot be an objection. The Govern- merit are very touchy about the subject of housewives.

I must remind the hon. Member that the Amendment dealing with housewives has not been called. He can, therefore, only deal with that as a passing reference.

Would I be in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in devoting the same amount of time to housewives as did the right hon. Gentleman?

The hon. Gentle-mar, can only wait and see.

I am in some confusion about this because if the right hon. Gentleman made a passing reference of about four minutes, I assume that a passing reference of about four minutes on my part will also be in Order. The right hon. Gentleman is touchy about housewives. He is touchy about housewives because he has to follow in the way of that perpetual apologist, the Attorney-General. He is touchy about housewives, because if he were not touchy he would include them as they use an enormous amount of electricity. There are, as he suggested in his speech at Leyton, 40 or 50 women's organisations to support them. Those organisations represent the housewives. It has always been the objection to a sensible reform that it goes too far, raises a matter of principle or that other people will object. It is no objection to including housewives because the spinsters might object. One might think that the spinster who looks after a household is a housewife in that sense. Obviously, we cannot expect everybody on a consumers' council to have to produce their marriage lines, because they can be consumers of electricity whether they are married or not. It does not depend on the validity of their relations whether their relationship is that of mother or daughter, or whoever it is keeps the house That is only a debating point, and a very poor debating point.

The truth of the matter is that there is a section of the community who use electricity purely as consumers and who are not on the productive side in the sense that they are producing like agriculture and industry. They are purely consumers, and it is in the interests of the industry that their views should be represented.

As an organisation.

So far as I understood, the right hon. Gentleman did not point to any organisation which covered them.

Yes. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is an association of women directly concerned with electricity supply and distribution—the Women's Electrical Association—and, of course, we should consult the Women's Electrical Association. Perhaps that never occurred to the hon. Gentleman.

It did occur to me. The lady who is the head of that organisation deserves very well of this country for her work in that sphere, but she does not represent the housewife as a housewife. The lady I am thinking of is a very skilled "technician on the electricity side, if we have the same lady in mind.

The hon. Gentleman has some other lady in mind.

Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to admit that the housewives can contribute a lot to consultative councils? It is on them that any burden of increased rates will fall. If the dangers which we apprehend happen in this nationalisation scheme, it will be very valuable to have on the councils some level-headed intelligent women. Even if they are Tories, the right hon. Gentleman should not indulge in victimisation by saying that they are not to be on the councils because they are the handmaidens of the Tory Party. Even if they had said that nationalisation is leading to disaster, they should be included. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to see whether there cannot be representatives of housewives on the consultative councils.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, at the end to insert:

"but a member of a Consultative Council other than the chairman shall not by reason of his appointment as such a member be disqualified for being elected to, or for sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament."

There is provision in the Bill which excludes hon. Members of this House from serving as members of the Central Authority or the area boards and acting as chairmen of consultative councils, but it occurred to me that we might be going a little too far if we sought to disqualify an hon. Member from serving as a member of a consultative council. In order to correct that defect in the Clause, I am moving this Amendment.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given any explanation of this Amendment. The effect, as he rightly said, is to enable hon. Members of this House to sit on these consultative councils, and that raises the issue whether they should be allowed to do so. There seem to me to be two objections. In the first place, hon. Members at the moment have all they can manage with their own legitimate work in this House, and very few indeed are in any position to take on and effectively discharge extra work outside. Therefore, there seems to be remarkably little case at the moment for facilitating their intrusion into other spheres of public work. Secondly, there is another objection, perhaps of more profound and permanent constitutional significance. Under subsection (9) provision is made that such people who serve on these councils may be paid expenses. It is, I suggest to the House, undesirable to extend the number of hon. Members who may be in receipt of money from Governmental agencies. It has been for 200 years the policy of this House to restrict, so far as possible, the number of hon. Members who shall be in receipt of remuneration of any kind from the Crown or from the Executive. That principle has been most rigidly maintained by this House, and it has necessitated specific Acts of Parliament in many cases to permit the creation of one additional Minister of the Crown. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman, as by a sidewind, and with a certain amount of casualness, proposing to introduce a provision under which hon. Members shall be in receipt of the payment of expenses from sources connected with his Department and the Electricity Authority.

I am not suggesting for one moment that these small sums would be any element of corruption, but I am saying that it is undesirable in principle to increase the role of the Executive as paymaster with regard to hon. Members of this House, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can find stronger reasons than he has done, it seems somewhat extra- ordinary that he should be prepared, for convenience perhaps in one or two cases, to violate a constitutional principle of considerable respectability and age.

I do not attach any great importance to this, but my prejudices are rather the same as those just expressed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there ought not to be second thoughts about this. I wonder if he would not find it possible to have second thoughts about this in another place. It cannot really be considered that there will be any considerable number of consultative councils which will be hopelessly debilitated by the absence of Members of Parliament and, on the other hand, there is the objection of principle which has been indicated, and I should have thought really it deserves rather more consideration than it has had.

With apologies, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will only take one sentence because this I agree is an infinitesimal point, but perhaps it is part of my function to be pedantic about these things—will the right hon. Gentleman consult his draftsmen about the second word in the third line of his Amendment, as to whether the word after "disqualified" should not rather be "from" than "for"? We may as well get these things right, and I am inclined to think that it would be better that way. I hope he may look at it later.

We are, of course, in rather a difficulty here because this is the process of the Minister in abolishing elected bodies and substituting for them nominated bodies, and as soon as he starts that he will be in difficulty. He is sweeping away the democratic process of election by which the local authorities ran the great public electrical bodies in the past, and is substituting for them these consultative councils which, as he has repeatedly said, are to be nominated by him.

We know the principles upon which the Minister is working in these matters because he himself told the House last night:

"I would not appoint somebody to one of the electricity boards in a representative capacity, if he had expressed himself as being against the provisions of the Bill and had declared that nationalisation was bound to prove a failure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947: Vol. 439, c. 117.]

What we would like to know from the Minister is, does he attach the same importance to these consultative councils as he does to the boards, and does the same bar which he has put on the boards apply to the members he is about to attach to the consultative councils? If he could give us an answer to that, it would elucidate the point as to how the series of elections which the Minister will now conduct under his hat are to work. We should like to know, on this question of consultative councils, the principle upon which he will act?

I will answer the question at once. I do not propose to appoint persons to these consultative councils without consulting with representative bodies in the area, and they will presumably make recommendations. I am not bound to accept the recommendations, but I shall take cognisance of them because the bodies concerned have greater knowledge of the persons in the area and their qualifications than I have. Therefore, there can be no question of discrimination against any individual on account of his politics. Indeed, I must have said that a score of times last night, on a few occasions when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was present and on several occasions when he was absent, and I trust what I have just said will satisfy him.

It is just because of those declarations which the right hon. Gentleman has made on many occasions 'when I was present, and no doubt on certain occasions when I was absent, that I am pressing him upon this occasion. He has said that he will take cognisance of the representations made by the local organisations, but that he does not feel himself necessarily bound to accept them. That is in the Bill. These are not representative institutions, these are nominated institutions. What I am trying to get at is the basis upon which he will work, because it is very important to know.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going right outside the terms of this Amendment. It is a very small point that is under discussion, namely, whether a member of a consultative council can or cannot be a Member of Parliament.

Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was just coming immedi- ately to the point. The Corporation of Edinburgh is a local authority and has expressed itself in no uncertain way about the Bill. An hon. Member of this House is firmly convinced that the Bill will lead to disaster, and that nationalisation is a very bad thing, namely, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling). If the Corporation of Edinburgh desire to appoint the hon. Member for South Edinburgh as a member of that area board, will or will not the right hon Gentleman discriminate against him? It is a perfectly fair question which arises because it affects every hon. Member on this side of the House. The point is that the definition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman will, as far as I can see, exclude every hon and right hon. Member on this side of the House and include every hon. and right hon. Member on that side. Therefore, we are entitled to ask, is this the purpose or will it be the result of the Amendment? If so, it is obviously a serious departure from what has been previously the practice in the political life of this country.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot enter into an argument on the matter. As I have said, this is a small issue—the question is whether a Member of Parliament can or cannot be a member of a consultative council.

I agree it is a narrow point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would say, however, that it is a narrow point raising a great issue. I see that the right hon. Gentleman offers to answer.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me if the Edinburgh Town Council, as one of the bodies in the area who are consulted about the persons to represent local authorities on the consultative council, made a recommendation that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), who is a member of the Conservative Party, should represent them on the consultative council, what I would do. My answer is this: I would not exclude the hon. Member on the ground that he was associated with the Tory Party.

Although it is a narrow point it is a great issue, for all the Minister has said is that he would not exclude the hon. Member on the ground that he was a member of the Tory Party. I trust not, for indeed that would be a very flagrant piece of favouritism. But the right hon. Gentleman carefully hedged his answer about by many other avenues which he closed to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. On the formula laid down by the right hon. Gentleman it would be possible and, indeed, legitimate for him to exclude any

I beg to move, in page II, line 27, at the end. to insert:

"(7) Each of the said Councils shall keep a register Which shall be available for inspection at all reasonble times and without charge, by the owner or occupier of any premises within the area of such Council, and shall record in such register a copy of every such representation to them as is referred to in subsection (4) of this section, together with the names and adresses of the persons by whom it was made, the dates on which it was received and considered, any conclusions thereon notified by them to the Area Board or to the Central Authority, any conclusions thereon notified to them by the Area Board, any directions given thereon by the Central Authority, and the date on which notification of each such conclusion or direction was received by the Council."

It will be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we take two other Amendments. One is in the name of the Minister of Fuel and Power—in page 11, line 35, at end, insert:

"(8) A Consultative Council may, after con sultation with the Central Authority, make representations to the Minister on any matters arising out of representations made by them to the Central Authority under subsection (6) of this section, and if it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Area Board and with the Council, that a defect is disclosed in the Area Board's general plans and arrangements for the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act, he may notify the defect to the Central Authority, and thereupon the Central Authority shall give to the Area Board such directions as they think necessary for remedying the defect, and the Area Board shall give effect to any such directions."

The other is in the name of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in page II, line 35, at end insert:

"(8) The Central Authority shall, when giving to the Area Board any directions under the last foregoing Subsection, furnish a copy thereof to the Council and if, at any time after the expiration of two months after they have made representations to the Central Authority, the Council shall represent to the Minister that they are dissatisfied with such directions, or with the failure of the Central Authority to give directions, the Minister shall, if so required by the Council, cause an inquiry to be held and may require the Central Authority to give to the Area. Board such directions as he shall think fit"

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It would perhaps save the time of the House if I began at the end, and very shortly indicated the argument for the second of the Amendments in the name of myself, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends. The Minister has made it quite clear that he intends these consultative councils to be, in effect, at any rate, rather more than consultative. He has used rather striking words which from any other mouth might even perhaps have seemed exaggerated. He said:

"—the consultative councils will be endowed with powers and will be called upon to undertake activities far wider than in the case of the consumers councils"

Later, he said:

"Will hon. Members please note how wide their powers are? They have to deal with any matter affecting the distribution of electricity …"

Later he made his statement more- specific. He said that there was to be:

"…a fully-fledged partnership with the area boards …We decided to make the Central Authority responsible for generation and the area boards responsible for distribution, and perhaps also partly responsible for generation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th March, 1947. c. 276-8.]

He then went on to describe the relations of the consultative councils with those bodies, so that-it is quite plain that in the contemplation of the Minister these councils are meant to have a kind of effectiveness not perhaps often associated with consultative councils. He told us that hitherto consumers' councils had always been eyewash. I was not sure whether he was referring to the Coal Act. Perhaps we have not had enough experience to know about that, but I do not know to what other consumers' councils he was referring.

If these consultative councils are to have anything like these activities and powers, which the Minister may have been rather exaggerating—indeed he must have been, if they are to have activities and powers they cannot 'be precisely described as consultative—what they will most need will be information, to know what happens. That is the aim and object of the second of these Amendments. The operative words are:

"The Central Authority shall, when giving to the Area Board any directions …furnish a copy thereof to the Council and if …the Council …are dissatisfied with such directions, the Minister shall …cause an inquiry to be held. …"

I think that is a fair synopsis of the proposal in the second of our Amendments. The main object of the Amendment is to make sure that the consultative councils do know. Our argument is strengthened by the Minister's new Subsection, which, I take it, is shortly to be moved. How can these consultative bodies decide to proceed further under that new Subsection unless they can get at the sort of information for which we are trying here, in our proposed Subsection (8), to provide the machinery? That is the short point of the second Amendment, and I hope that that will be a sufficient explanation.

I turn back to the earlier of our two Amendments, on which I think it is necessary to be very slightly more lengthy. These are the operative words:

"Each of the said Councils shall keep a register …available for inspection …and shall record in such register a copy of every such representation to them as is referred to in subsection (4) …together with …any conclusions thereon. …"

In other words, the object is to make it possible for the ordinary member of the public, the private or corporate consumer of electricity, to know what happens to his representations. As the matter stands at present, he represents that in some way or another the service is inefficient or excessively dear, but he does not know what happens next. Our proposal is that there should be a register kept which would enable him to see what happens to his representation, if anything does happen. I suggest that that really gives a kind of democratic control over the matter which really is not provided anywhere else in the Bill.

I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think I am being excessively controversial if I say to the Minister that it really seems that such provision is unusually necessary and is made more unusually necessary with every utterance from the Minister. Again he told us this afternoon that he might perhaps have a town council advising him to appoint a housewife to one of these advisory committees, but he said, "Not a Tory housewife, but a housewife who is of non-Tory character." I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to-think that those of us who are opposed to Socialism are nevertheless honest in our desire that where anything is socialised the resulting arrangements should be as good as they can possibly be made. If that is so, one of the main charges against nationalisation has always been, and must always continue to be, that we get precisely this sort of thing, that it is this way we drift into the one-party State. One starts by saying that we cannot even have a housewife on an advisory committee about electricity in East Anglia unless the Minister first vets here to discover that she toes the party line. We have had that said today. Last night, the Minister said, talking not of these councils, but of other boards:

"—it would be quite improper to appoint to such boards a person who was definitely opposed to the nationalisation of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. no.]

Hear, hear.

Hon. Members opposite evidently think that is wise. The Minister has said that he did not say that, but there it is in HANSARD, and it is my own recollection of what he said. If there is any risk at all, the Minister has made it doubly clear that there is a risk with him. It is usually polite to say on these occasions, "We have no suspicions or doubts about the representative of the Ministry now before us, but he is not eternal, he may pass away one of these days, and who knows what sort of person we may get." I admit I have no such fears today. That is not my argument. My argument is that the existing Minister has made it quite clear that he will have such considerations in mind in making these appointments.

Then what sort of safeguard in future is an electricity consumer who does not toe the party line going to have? If he and his wife do not toe the party line then they cannot sit on an advisory council. We know that they cannot sit in a managerial capacity; we were told that last night. The existing statutory safeguards, all the safeguards that arose out of the existence of private enterprise, out of the possibility of competition from gas and so on—all those safeguards are to go. I suggest that the only genuine safeguard yet proposed to be put into this Bill is the one which I am now proposing. That is to say, where private individuals, or others for that matter, including corporations, have made any representations to the consultative councils, whose power and influence the Minister rates so high— where they put in special representation, there should be a simple method by which they should be able to follow the fate and effect of those representations. That is the short point of these two Amendments, and particularly of the first, with which I am now dealing.

I think there are other arguments in its favour too. There would be increased public confidence in the councils and less risk of the councils dwindling into nothingness or, at least, into insignificance. I think that clearly such provisions as I am recommending to the House would prevent unnecessary and double work. It would make it possible, where a question arose, for it to be dealt with by a very simple means of centralising representations and so on. It would be a very simple job to note what questions were arising here and there, so that there would be no need to have the same sums worked out in five or six different places.

Does the hon. Gentleman propose that each everyday trivial complaint about electricity service should go into this register? Surely the book would be simply full of complaints.

I like what the last sentence seemed to mean; I understand the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) knows what the hon. Member for Wimbledon really meant.

It is the hon. Member for Cambridge University who does not know.

Taking the words on their face value, I think there is something in what was said. But I am a little surprised at that particular intervention because the hon. Member had the advantage of sitting on the Committee upstairs If he will read the Committee HANSARD he will see the distinction made by the Minister between the trivial everyday complaints and the other sort and their treatment. I do not think that difficulty need make the House hesitate. I think also that the proposal would tend to discourage frivolous or ill-founded complaints because people would not like to be seen trying publicly to make trouble where no trouble was I think it would lead towards consistency, towards the building up of a general case law in these matters. I ask the House, if it is possible to put aside party prejudice in this matter, to believe that we are not here trying to make it difficult to socialise, though we think it wrong to socialise the industry; what we are trying to do is to make it certain that, if socialised the industry-must be, then still the ordinary person should have some chance not only of having, but of knowing and feeling and being seen to have, a method of influencing the way in which provision of this necessity is managed with regard to his own particular or local interest.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I very much hope that after the modest and persuasive speech of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), the Parliamentary Secretary, in his own interest and in the interests of the Minister, will consider this Amendment very carefully. In my view it is most constructive, and I think the Minister should regard it with serious attention. My hon. Friend appealed to him to approach it from a non-party point of view. It is true that all of us on this side of the House, and my hon. Friend in particular, are wholeheartedly opposed to this Measure, as we are to Socialism in all its aspects, but there are very many people throughout the country who are not committed to either of the two parties. They are watching this Bill very carefully. I am now speaking of the private consumer rather than the corporate bodies to which my hon. Friend referred. They are watching because they hope and believe that this Measure will bring to them a more efficient and cheaper supply of electricity than they had before.

It is significant that the very first Amendment we put down on the Committee stage of the Bill was to ensure to the general public a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. That was turned down upstairs somewhat ruthlessly. I hope that this Amendment, which seeks to do the same kind of thing by another method, will obtain a more sympathetic hearing from the Minister. I have had the honour to represent two counties in rural Scotland for a number of years. In one of them there has been considerable complaint for a long period of time from private consumers regarding what they consider the excessive rates charged for the electricity supplied to them. It is just this kind of people who will benefit if the Amendment to ensure that these councils should keep a register is approved. I hope I am not anticipating what the Minister will say, but why should a Minister, especially a Socialist Minister, object to the keeping of a register? They always claim specially to speak in the name of the people, the consuming public. In the past they have never been averse to increasing the number of secretarial staffs or civil servants, so why should they object to this proposal?

Of course, I myself object to any increase in bureaucracy but I think that if we are to have it at all, any increase in the secretarial staff caused by the acceptance of this Amendment will prove to have been amply justified at the end of the day. I am sorry to keep the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) waiting for another minute. Judging by the alacrity with which she rose I hope that she intends to show the same eagerness as hon. Members on this side of the House that the Minister should accept this Amendment. I end by saying that I believe that it is in the interests of the public as a whole, particularly in the interests of the poorer sections of the consuming public, that this Amendment should be approved.

Not having had the advantage of sitting on the Committee upstairs, I do not quite know how it is intended to draw a line between the hundred and one frivolous and vexatious complaints which the ordinary man in the street and his wife make at the electricity offices every day, and the broad questions of policy to which I understand the hon. Gentleman was referring. It is obvious that minor complaints occur every day which do not affect the whole policy of the running of this industry. They are of a frivolous and vexatious kind. Therefore, it surprises me that any hon. Member opposite should have suggested that a register should be kept for the ordinary general complaints from the man in the street. To do so would be to do the very thing about which they are constantly complaining. It would be necessary to keep a hoard of officials in order to register the complaints.

Does the hon. Lady by her argument suggest that the complaints of these poor people, the very genuine complaints which arise from great hardship, should go unregarded?

I did not suggest anything of the kind. I was following the argument of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) who said that in the Committee upstairs, of which I was not a member, a distinct division was drawn between that kind of complaint and the broader more general complaints on policy. The consultative committees will have nothing to do with political beliefs. Not at any time whilst I have been in the House, or whilst looking through the records of Committees upstairs, has it been suggested that there should be any political purge of these consultative committees—

The Minister says so.

No. The Minister said nothing of the kind.

Look in HANSARD tomorrow.

That is pure imagination on the part of the Opposition. The only thing that fell from the lips of the Minister was that he would not place on the boards people who had expressed an absolute antipathy to nationalisation, and who, therefore, could not be expected to carry out the work of these boards in the way in which it should be done; but that does not mean that there would be any purge because of their political prejudices. There may be some people on this side of the House who do not believe in the nationalisation of the electricity industry. I do not know; there may be but this question certainly did not extend in any sense at all to the consultative committees, and I think that—

Will the hon. Lady permit me? She said it did not extend to the consultative committees. Will she permit me to remind her that the Minister said that he would be influenced by, or might be influenced by a municipality to appoint a housewife but not a housewife of a non-Tory type? My recollection is quite clear on that point.

I am very glad that J was able, with my own ears, to hear what he did say. What he said about this matter was that he would not necessarily be influenced by a member of the Housewives' League. She may be a member of a co-operative society, but he may have no knowledge of that society—[Interruption.] Why should hon. Members oppo.-site begin to worry at the mention of co-operative societies?

May I interrupt the hon. Lady? She says she heard what the Minister said with her own ears. Surely, then, she heard the term "housewives of a non-Tory character"?

That is quite a different matter. Unfortunately, the term "housewife," which is an honourable term, has been dragged through this House on a purely political basis, and I am very sorry—

I really must bring the hon. Member back to the Amendment before the House. We are not discussing housewives.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that. The point at issue is that, if this book is to be kept open, and is to have written in it every day, after the fashion of the Recording Angel, all the frivolous and vexatious complaints which people may make about electricity supply—which they are doing today though, no doubt, they will not do it as much under nationalised industry as under private industry—I think hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment are only asking for something which will be abused and will only produce frivolous and vexatious complaints. I therefore hope the Minister will reject the Amendment.

The suggestion has been made that we should all approach this matter in a non-party spirit, but I am bound to say that the speech which preceded, that remark could hardly be calculated to encourage a non-party attitude in anybody. The remarks of certain hon. Members about my right hon. Friend were a travesty of what took place. It is perfectly true, in passing, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) knows perfectly well, that a kind of joke often passes between the two Front Benches. My right hon. Friend said, in discussing the type of housewife who may go on a consultative council, that he meant a housewife not, of course, of the Tory type. What he meant by that was the type of person who really is not a housewife at all and does not know the difficulties under which the real housewife labours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I am simply explaining what my right hon. Friend said, and, as the hon. Member was not here, he does not know whether it is rubbish or not. I do not want to be drawn into what is a complete side-issue in this matter. We axe discussing three Amendments. The first, put down by the Opposition, to page II, line 27, provides that the councils shall keep a register. The second, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend, proposes that the consultative councils may, in effect, appeal to the Minister, thus carrying out, incidentally, a promise to consider an Amendment of this kind which he gave during the Committee stage. The third Amendment. which is put down by the Opposition, I think may fairly be described as an alternative method of achieving somewhat similar results. I would like to deal with the first Amendment separately, and then with the other two.

I want to emphasise once again that it is our desire that these councils-and my right hon. Friend has said this again and again—should work well, be vigorous, and keep in touch with consumers. We welcome any suggestions from any part of the House which will make it easier for them to do this, and which will improve their prospects, but we must be sure, in considering any proposals of this kind, that they will really achieve this object, and that they do not, in effect, tie down the councils in matters of procedure and do not strangle them in red tape. No doubt, hon. Members put their names to the first Amendment assuming that complaints and representations made by consumers would, in the first place, always be made in writing. What is really the assumption of the Amendment is that they would all be considered by the main consultative council; but I would suggest to them that, in practice, neither of these two things is very likely.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) asked whether it was really seriously contended that every little frivolous complaint should be put down in this book. I have said in Committee upstairs, and I do not think that anybody disagrees, that, obviously, the first action which a consumer who is dissatisfied will take is not to rush off to the consultative committee. He will, in fact, go to the area board's offices in precisely the same way as he now goes to the municipal or company office and make his complaint. In the second place, supposing that he is dissatisfied with his treatment by the local office of the area board, under the Bill, as now amended in Committee, it is provided that every consultative council shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the appointment of district committees. Therefore, his next step is not to go to the main consultative council, but to the district committee, and it is there, I suggest to hon. Members opposite, that the more important complaints which have not been settled at the local office level will emerge; but, there is nothing, of course, about district committees in the Amendment which we are discussing.

Again, it is well known, I suppose, to a good many hon. Members that constituents frequently prefer to see them personally and make oral representations on all sorts of matters and it is in precisely the same way, I imagine, that it is likely that consumers will make their complaints. It is not likely that they will give all their complaints in writing, even to a district committee, and I do not see why that should be assumed. Indeed, the implication rather surprised me in view of the dislike which the Tory Party are alleged to have of bureaucracy and red tape. They are rather assuming that everything is to be in writing and that a form would have to be filled in before anyone could make an application

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? He is rather unchivalrous in destroying his supporter from behind He ought, at least, to read this thing carefully. What we are talking about here are the complaints made to this advisory body. I am glad that he explains the distinction between these complaints and those made at two lower levels which, it is hoped, will save it the more numerous and less important ones. But that makes the argument which the hon. Gentleman is addressing to the House entirely false.

If the hon. Member will allow me, he will find that I am coming to the point which he makes. However, it was necessary to correct the false impression which his own speech created. There is no reason why we should formalise this process. But there is another matter which is also really ignored in this Amendment. It is assumed that every complaint is actually dealt with by the council itself. If I may say so, that is really carrying the conception of part-time bodies to an absurd extent. Obviously, a large number of these complaints will be dealt with by officials, and it is proper that they should be so dealt with, but, again, if one is to go by the Amendment. it is necessary to provide exactly what the council thought about a particular complaint. Of course, many cases will never reach them at all.

The hon. Member the senior Burgess, for Cambridge University said, in effect, just now, that he accepted my version of what would happen. Presumably, therefore, what he is concerned with in this Amendment are only the representations which actually reach the main consultative council. That may be a possible interpretation. If that is so—and it is also a question of the complaints which are considered by them at the centre—what he is really seeking is to make available to the public the proceedings of the councils. There is not very much difference in that. By far the greater part of their time will, no doubt, be taken up in considering representations made to them, and that is really what the Amendment suggests. That, at least, is something worth considering.

What is quite out of the question, m my opinion, is, as my hon. Friend suggested, that every conceivable complaint which comes through all these various district committees should somewhere be recorded. If that is the idea, it is tantamount to saying that the whole of the files of these district committees and consultative councils should be open for inspection. I do not think that that can be seriously maintained. I see the right hon. Gentleman opposite nodding his assent, and we can, therefore, consider the matter in a much narrower context.

On that point, I would like to submit to the House these considerations. Firstly, it may not always be desirable that these records of proceedings should be made public. We know quite well that there is a provision in the Bill for the Minister to give directions to the central authority on security grounds to refuse to disclose directions which he has given on security grounds. This is not, if I may say so, a completely academic matter. For instance, supposing that a body of consumers complained because in some other part of the area more rapid development was taking place. It may well be that for reasons of national security it had been found necessary to develop one part of the country before another, but it would be most unwise and undesirable for that information to become publicly known. It would be necessary, therefore, to keep it from the public. In any case, surely this is not a matter which we need to put into the Bill. We are really concerned here with the proceedings of the councils. Some of those proceedings will be laid down under regulations made under Subsection (I2) of this Clause. For the rest, they will be left, as they should be left, I suggest, to the consultative councils themselves.

May I now turn briefly to the other two Amendments? As those who were Members of the Committee will recall, I promised that we would consider an Amendment which, in effect, would enable the consultative council, if it were dissatisfied with what the central authority had said or done as a result of its representations, to go to the Minister. We have provided for that in our Amendment, and I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree that we have drawn the Amendment pretty widely. It they are dissatisfied on any matters arising out of representations made by them—that would include, incidentally, the point of not being informed—it would be perfectly proper for them to go to the Minister and complain. If the Minister is satisfied that they have made their point, and if a defect is disclosed in the area board's general plans, he can then tell the central authority that they must put it right. I think that really gives exactly the right relationship between the consultative council,' the Minister, the central authority, and the area board. We do not want the consultative council coming along and expecting the Minister to intervene in every single individual case. That would be an impossible situation, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends would press for that. We say that, if, as a result of these representations, it is discovered that there is something wrong with the plans and arrangements, then the Minister steps in and says, "You must put this right." I suggest that is a more satisfactory way of doing it than the alternative suggested by the Opposition. On those grounds, I must asked the House to reject this and the other Opposition Amendment.

If I am in Order, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to move our Amendment, but I should like to have your guidance in the matter.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask for your Ruling about that, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. Gentleman move another Amendment before this one is disposed of?

The hon. Gentleman was asking a question, but the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) got up on a point of Order before he had finished.

I think it was suggested that that is what I should do. I should be glad to have your guidance, Sir.

The Amendment must be moved after this Amendment which is before the House has been disposed of.

In that case, I would conclude by saying that I feel that these other Amendments are unnecessary and bureaucratic, and that our Amendment gives us all we need in the matter.